Aristotle, Metaphysics (Empedocles, love, and final causes) - Introduction to Philosophy

[@GregoryBSadler]

we now move on to Aristotle in the Intro class, themed on Love, Friendship, and Desire

[@GregoryBSadler]

Aristotle is considering Empedocles' theory which has Love or Friendship as a cosmological force, binding everything together. Aristotle thinks this is too simplistic a way to look at things -- so he thinks instead in terms of goods, final causes, and whether there could be a final cause for the entire universe. He thinks there is such a final cause, a purpose for the entire universe -- thought thinking itself. This draws other things to it, and we participate in it, insofar as we think

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hahaha! I'm always surprised when my pop-culture references get traction with the students today -- we're separated by an entire generation now. The funniest thing about this is that I couldn't help but talk about it -- as soon as I started thinking about a person without bones, that image (and one from an old scifi story, where a guy gets transported to the moon, without his skeleton, to head off something like a hostile takeover) popped into my head!

[@WoolleyWoolf]

One thing I don’t quite understand is: if thought is the highest form of existence in the universe, and we participate in this through learning / knowing / thinking (especially about intrinsically worthwhile things like philosophy/metaphysics), then how it can be reconciled with the fact that so many people have historically missed out on many and great opportunities in participating in this, mainly because the story of human progress took so long to advance from obtaining necessary/useful resources to pleasure and finally to leisure? They seem to have been ripped off in life (in addition to living shorter lives) by having to focus so much time and energy on their survival. By having to sacrifice their participation in the highest form of existence, would they have been considered, by Aristotle, to have lived less fulfilled / purposeful lives than if they had? Would an adequate answer to this be that it’s more about the mere act of thinking itself (even if it’s about less beautiful/complex ideas) that matters more than thinking about higher topics, since it can still connect the individual to Thought itself? Also, why do many people and societies (past and present) choose/prioritise necessities and pleasure over leisure/philosophy? Would the answer be that people/societies/cultures weren’t informed enough about Aristotle’s metaphysics, or other metaphysical explanations had stronger appeal at the time?

[@GregoryBSadler]

The simple answer would be: life ain’t fair

[@WoolleyWoolf]

@@GregoryBSadler Hahaha

[@SL1991]

I like your style of teaching Gregory.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to hear it.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're quite welcome

[@aow59]

I love watching all your videos, but I have to say - you earned a big kudos from me this time by the Family Guy reference to boneless Peter. Well done :)

[@asemabdulhafez9295]

Please , sir could you refer us to the selections you assigned for reading.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Easy enough to go to a digital text of the Metaphysics, and search on "Empedocles", I imagine

[@tukkek]

Great class but a bit dense and the drawing is lacking a bit. I think the animal world comparisons are not as definite as they're made to sound but the gist of it is clear enough.

[@chris65536]

"Your brain does your thinking for you." That reminds me of part of an entry in Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary: "Brain n. An apparatus with which we think what we think..." The rest of it: "That which distinguishes the man who is content to be something from the man who wishes to do something. A man of great wealth, or one who has been pitchforked into high station, has commonly such a headful of brain that his neighbors cannot keep their hats on. In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, brain is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office."

[@stewartquark1661]

I would like to post something substantive and "unique" but be assured it would be read....

[@GregoryBSadler]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bn7WYmymh6iUb8k

[@Alkis05]

This final cause thing doesn't seem right. Suppose I make an object with given purpose and inscribed in it how it was made and then I die. Now people is using my invention for something completely different. When I die the information about the final cause is gone. They can know what was the formal cause, the efficient cause and the material cause but not the final cause. It is subjective. For them, the final cause will be the reason why they use the object. It seems farfetched to say they changed the object just by using it for something else. What I mean is: to know the final cause of an object is irrelevant. The important thing to know is not the intention the object was created with, but the actual consequences it can have in the world.

[@GregoryBSadler]

"to know the final cause of an object is irrelevant." Well, there you go. Case solved. You don't need to know anything more about it

[@Alkis05]

Seriously? Is that it? Damn. I thought philosophy was hard. I will move on and solve the problem of induction now... By the way, nice channel, Its content to keep me going for a long long time. Thank you very much

[@GregoryBSadler]

Alkis05 Good luck with it.

[@Alkis05]

Gregory B. Sadler One question (if its not too personal): If you could get the a guaranteed instantaneous right answer for one question, what question would it be?

[@kennydobbs6227]

Alkis05 the objection you raised is called "accidental substance." Artifacts made by human beings have a final cause placed onto the object from our intellect, but it is not naturally occurring. Of course, the material substance of the artifact in question is limited by its potency. So if the substance is composed of stone, it doesn't matter if people try to use it as a flotation device, it's not gonna work. I could use a sturdy water bottle as a hammer, but only if it's a sturdy water bottle. Natural substances have final cause regardless of our own perception of their teleology, so a tree will act like a tree naturally, not because my intellect recognizes that the tree grows branches, fruit, and has vines etc.